On Thu, 26 Aug 2004 17:26:39 +0200, abelard <abelard2_at_abelard.org>
typed:
>On 25 Aug 2004 18:29:54 -0700, ronnirubin_at_sprintmail.com (Arthur L. Rubin)
>
> typed:
>
>>"Daniel J. Lavigne" <taxfree_at_taxrefusal.com> wrote in message news:<Gt2Xc.15923$_H5.515491_at_news20.bellglobal.com>...
>>
>>(For whatever reason, this post didn't appear on the server on which I
>>normally read misc.taxes and can.taxes. Thank abelard for bringing it
>>to my attention.)
>>
>>> "Arthur L. Rubin" <ronnirubin_at_sprintmail.com> wrote in message
>
>>> > That may be correct. The energy crisis, caused by the failure to
>>> > research nuclear fusion reactors and to use existing nuclear fission
>>> technology,
>>> > may very well lead to war.
>>>
>>> Fool, the energy crisis has little to do with the state of research with
>>> respect to nuclear technology. Indeed, if you would use your time to proper
>>> purpose, and discover the nature of the many crises that we face, you would
>>> be able to acknowledge that we have, at most, uranium sufficient to fuel
>>> existing reactors for a maximum of 50 to 70 years.
>>
>>There is sufficient Uranium (if breeder reactors were allowed) to
>>supply our
>>present fossil fuel usage (including Uranium) for about 2000 years, as
>>you well should know.
>
>please develop this claim with numbers....
>to assist you....i think you are confused.....
>http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf75.htm
>"Thus the world's present measured resources of uranium in the lower cost
>category (3.5 Mt) and used only in conventional reactors, are enough to
>last for some 50 years. This represents a higher level of assured
>resources than is normal for most minerals. Further exploration and higher
>prices will certainly, on the basis of present geological knowledge, yield
>further resources as present ones are used up. A doubling of price from
>present levels could be expected to create about a tenfold increase in
>measured resources, over time."
>....
>"Widespread use of the fast breeder reactor could increase the utilisation
>of uranium sixty-fold or more. This type of reactor can be started up on
>plutonium derived from conventional reactors and operated in closed
>circuit with its reprocessing plant. Such a reactor, supplied with natural
>uranium for its "fertile blanket", very quickly reaches the stage where
>each tonne of ore yields 60 times more energy than in a conventional
>reactor."
>
>
>
>it is currently important to consider
>1)are you including fast breeder technology....not yet fully
> developed and demonstrated....
>2)the removal of fossil sources....
>http://www.abelard.org/briefings/fossil_fuel_replacements.htm
>http://www.abelard.org/briefings/energy-economics.asp
>3)the spread of current western standards of living and increasing
> population
>
>imv both 2&3 will *both* reduce estimate reserves by a factor of ~10
i should add that current nuclear resource use applies to the small %age
of current nuclear reactors....currently only ~15-20% of electricity
production....therefore another factor of ~5
another poss difficulty in the figures...
current world production i think is ~35,000 tonnes...
whereas usage is ~60,000 tonnes....
i guess this current difference is being filled by retiring bombs....
therefore prob another factor of ~2
nuclear power is not the easy fix all although it is of extreme importance
--
web site at www.abelard.org - news and comment service, logic,
energy, education, politics, etc >800,000 document calls yearly
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
all that is necessary for [] walk quietly and carry
the triumph of evil is that [] a big stick.
good people do nothing [] trust actions not words
only when it's funny -- roger rabbit
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Received on Thu Aug 26 2004 - 10:35:56 PDT